Quote
headly123
Posted by: bigfrankie ()

Date: May 27, 2013 17:31


"...Dragging his ass all over the Country". I didn't know they kid-napped him and forced him to do it!

You missed my point. Which is why take him all over the country and not use him . They are not dragging him but If I had him with me the whole tour I sure as hell would use him for more then a token song or two. Maybe when they played CYHMK with Taylor on the lead it scared the shit out of them . CAUSE IT SOUNDED GOOD .

Yeah, but wouldn't they have known that in rehearsal of the song? Maybe if the solo was a bit shorter...well, I wouldn't want to curtail him.

~"Love is Strong"~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-27 18:26 by angee.

Quote
carlorossi

Quote
gripweed
WHERE the Heck did you hear this ??? MT has stage fright...
-Gripweed

Since the Mayall days. He's spoken about it openly. He attended a Stones gig in the last decade (don't remember the year, others here can verify) and had an invitation to play, but backed out.

I have never heard or read Taylor stating this.
Listening and watching to the gigs and Mick's playing these days I'm of the opinion he's even too relaxed.

Astoria.

Quote
No Expectations
It would make Mick admit they are better with him than without him. This will NEVER happen.

You may be right....but I hope you're wrong. MJ can have reason to open up to
this unfolding drama.

Really glad for Mick Taylor reportedly finally becoming a millionaire of
of this gig.

If you believe the Taylorites, a virtuoso like MT should have achieved that status long ago.

Sorry to hear bout his stage fright issue though.
Potentially tells a lot about the stage time (or lack thereof).

Thoroughly have enjoyed the time he's been able to overcome his
issue(s) and have fun playing on stage this tour though.

Keep MT on for the entire show. Please. I miss that guitar work of his. I miss it a lot.

Quote
Brstonesfan
It is sad how they are treating him once again. They simply refuse to
A acknowledge that he made them the greatest band particularly when
the could not compete with the Beatles pop and Zeps rock. He gave them real
real musicianship to,accompany Jagger/Richards great song writing abilities
at the time.

[Added hours later: My apology to many readers for having had to refer to the most obvious simplicities in the next paragraph.]

What is, was and has been great about the Rolling Stones, did not start with Mick Taylor joining the band and did not stop with his leaving it. I think it is both correct and respectful towards the band at first to state and stress that fact. If one considers the '68-'72 four studio albums as the band's third of possibly four peaks of their career, Mick Taylor joined the band at a time only when he was credited of playing in two songs on the second of those four studio albums. He was with the band when that third peak ebbed out, without his being there prevented it to happen. (Live playing seemed to uphold the level though.) And when he was a member of the band during the third peak, the greatness of the songs and the band's enterprising spirit and passion in the studio were even more important than his solo guitar. And his guitar playing also had the advantage of coworking with Keith Richards' (often) more collective band oriented guitar playing and with Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman on drums and bass. But when all that is said, Mick Taylor was very special as guitarist then.

From the first moment when it was rumoured and then reported that Mick Taylor was to take part in the five remaining concerts of 2012, too, I have had daydreams (as first immediately in a post on Nov 26th) about Mick Taylor full scale playing with the Stones in a three guitar band set up. Both in a possible recording of a studio album and on an ensuing tour where recorded songs might feature in setlists, with Mick Taylor on stage during the whole concerts (with varying guitarist playing lead on the various songs). Attitudes here don't encourage something like that to happen, I am afraid. I stress that I for one have hoped and wished for it to be and still do, only as one respectful of the many factors that make a band as THE ROLLING STONES. I will least of all prevail upon the band as a pushy kind of person to let Mick Taylor do all this, but wanted rather discreetly to point at a possibility that I hoped might be the band's own wish. And, in the first instance, as to this part of the tour, I express the plea as in the words in the subject matter of this thread; "We want Mick Taylor on more songs PLEASE!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-28 05:54 by Witness.

Quote
carlorossi

Quote
gripweed
WHERE the Heck did you hear this ??? MT has stage fright...
-Gripweed

Since the Mayall days. He's spoken about it openly. He attended a Stones gig in the last decade (don't remember the year, others here can verify) and had an invitation to play, but backed out.

What?! Never heard that story where he was to go on stage with the Stones and backed out!

As others have posted, Taylor oozes confidence (strolling on the stage of an arena as if he's at the Mean Fiddler, smooching with Keith, Bobby, Darryl, etc...), possibly a little bit too much but I guess he just has that in him, he rises to the occasion...and his solo career had none really so it faltered.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-28 02:22 by gotdablouse.

Quote
Munichhilton
It's like having Joe Montana in a playoff game and leaving him on the bench...the Stones don't want the win...they want the tie...

SFM without T was odd...

The same could be said about them not recording a new album. Except for it's a loss to the Beatles in the Super Bowl of Rock 'N Roll.

Yep.... HERE IS A FACT JAGGER:

THE ROLLING STONES ARE NOT THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND EVER - BUT

THE ROLLING STONES WITH MICK TAYLOR IS THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND EVER.

DEAL WITH IT. PUT HIM ON STAGE!!

Quote
duffydawg
Yep.... HERE IS A FACT JAGGER:

THE ROLLING STONES ARE NOT THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND EVER - BUT

THE ROLLING STONES WITH MICK TAYLOR IS THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND EVER.

DEAL WITH IT. PUT HIM ON STAGE!!

Interesting. So it's Mick Taylor that is the game breaker in the Super Bowl of Rock 'N Roll? Beatles VS Stones, of course.

The band does seem more energized when MT is up there. They are not utilizing him well at all except for one show,

I think when you have the moniker "Greatest Rock and Roll Band" that is conotes a live act. Rock and Roll is hallmarked by guitar oriented music.

So while comparing to the Beatles is the historical context but for me and many of my friends, without MT I would argue the following acts are more legitimatly called the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band" - in terms of delivering a mind blowing live act - hard rock:

1. Led Zeppelin (Before Bonham's death)
2. The Who (Keith Moon era)
3. Pink Floyd (Prior to break up)

I am not sure there are any others. But for many having a key, viruoso guitar player that is important. (The Who have Townshend but really their sound was also driven by Entwistle).

But I think many would put Led Zeppelin ahead of the current Non-MT line-up.

I enjoy Taylor playing with them and if it's on one song then fine and if it's on more like in LA then great. Either way, I never thought they would do it, especially after he reportedly backed out at the Austoria gig in 2003, so I'm thankful that it happened.

The only thing I don't get is if you have him play on multiple songs, like in LA, why are these songs spread out all over the setlist?
I would keep the beginning of the setlist as it is with a ballad, a guest spot and a couple of lesser known/played songs they rotate and the two new songs. This will keep it this part fresh and entertaining for the whole crowd. Then Keith has his two songs and then go into the couple of songs Taylor plays on. According to the youtube videos they are always received great so when the crowd is really into it you hit the warhorse part and you hit a home run IMO!!!
So for that LA show it would look like this:

1 - Get Off Of my Cloud
2 - IORR
3 - Paint it Black
4 - Gimme Shelter
5 - All Down the Line
6 - Far Away Eyes
7 - Doom and Gloom
8 - One More Shot
9 - Honky Tonk Women
10 - You Got the Silver - Keith
11 - Before They Make me Run - Keith
12 - Midnight Rambler with Mick Taylor
13 - Sway with Mick Taylor
14 - Can´t You Hear me Knocking with Mick Taylor
15 - Miss You
16 - Start me Up
17 - Tumbling Dice
18 - Brown Sugar
19 - Sympathy for the Devil
Encore
20 - You Can´t Always Get What You Want
21 - Jumping Jack Flash
22 - Satisfaction with Mick Taylor


Ps. Imagine the response of everybody if someone posted this setlist as his "dream setlist" a year ago? All responses would be something like "yeah right" "dream on" "that will never happen" "you might as well ask them to open with Gomper"

Cheers,
Wuudy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-28 04:15 by Wuudy.

Quote
DoomandGloom
The whole scenario is an embarrassment to Wood, Taylor and fans of the band. I don't think there's a vicious logic to it. A lost opportunity, poorly planned and unevenly executed, I won't post any further on MT, the episode is ruining the tour for me. I have tickets to Boston 1 and Philly 1, I know what not to expect.

Most appropriate screen name.
Ever.

Good Lawd.
Mess up a wet dream.

Bump. Because. Chicago.

More Taylor!
Little Queenie!

MJ: For Chicago shoes - ditch the guest and just give MT the balance of time.

Prediction: Jennifer Hudson onstage. (Typical MJ desire)

More logical prediction: Buddy Guy.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
DoomandGloom
The whole scenario is an embarrassment to Wood, Taylor and fans of the band. I don't think there's a vicious logic to it. A lost opportunity, poorly planned and unevenly executed, I won't post any further on MT, the episode is ruining the tour for me. I have tickets to Boston 1 and Philly 1, I know what not to expect.

Most appropriate screen name.
Ever.

Good Lawd.
Mess up a wet dream.

I was having a bad day.

Mick Taylor, love his period with the Stones, he's brilliant, but he had his period and chose to leave, then did essentially nothing else. And anyone who heard Ron Wood doing Can't You Hear Me Knocking on the Licks tour, if they were honest about it, would say 'Mick who"? seriously. I'll be honest, when the song started on the Licks show they played it that I attended (Toronto, ACC, 2002; they didn't play it at the Rogers Centre two nights later, I also attended), I thought, can't believe they are attempting this with Woody. Then Wood - seriously underrated guitarist largely I would suggest because he's a bon vivant and hence seen as a clown to those who forget a pretty decent band he was a main man in, Faces - sounded just like the Sticky Fingers version and I turned to my fellow serious, serious Stones fan/aficionado and brother and said 'Mick Taylor who?" Seriously. Midnight Rambler is the same. Stones have done brilliant versions with and without Taylor. The song is not all Taylor. Keith, uh, does the riff, for instance? As for Knocking, I've seen the YouTube clips with Taylor this tour (didn't do it in Toronto) and Woody was better in 2002, frankly. I like them both, I'm not into the ridiculous comparisons, each member of the Stones, whatever their role, has served the band to make them what they are, were and have been during the various periods, so, c'mon, folks.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-28 06:58 by baldboy.

Quote
duffydawg
Yep.... HERE IS A FACT JAGGER:

THE ROLLING STONES ARE NOT THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND EVER - BUT

THE ROLLING STONES WITH MICK TAYLOR IS THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND EVER.

DEAL WITH IT. PUT HIM ON STAGE!!

Much as I have started to dream about and still would love Mick Taylor even rejoined the band like an "as if" full time member: If the quoted would be the overriding message, as an isolated reaction I almost start to sympathize with a decision not to have Mick Taylor. It is most provoking against my attitude towards the band as it has been since the band's arrival and through the decades. It is as if you would rename the band "Mick Taylor and the Rolling Stones".

[The edit is the addition of a lost word.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-28 06:58 by Witness.

absolutely! Taylor is great; he had his period. He chose to leave. And the Stones of course have been absolute shit without him, Some Girls is horseshit, an accumulation of great tracks on all the albums since are crap (akin to Goats Head Soup and It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, Taylor albums that are not considered first rate compared to previous (but are damn good), etc. And the Stones were beyond horrible before Taylor arrived to teach everyone else how to write songs and play guitar - all the band could manage without Taylor was excrement tracks like Satisfaction, Get Off Of My Cloud, Paint It Black, countless other soundtrack of the British Invasion/sixties ... It's a wonder the Stones ever got a recording contract without Mr. Taylor, he of the myriad solo hits and/or memorable tunes.

sent someone over to The Stone's Hotel in Chicago a couple hours ago. She met with Mick Taylor but he was not optimistic about getting more songs tomorrow.

I just get a more detailed update. taylor said he believes jagger is working him in leading to more participation in the shows "near the end" of this 'tour'.

taylor also told her he played on 6 songs at staples. we're all getting old.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-28 07:04 by DREAMTIME.

Quote
DREAMTIME
sent someone over to The Stone's Hotel in Chicago a couple hours ago. She met with Mick Taylor but he was not optimistic about getting more songs tomorrow.

I just get a more detailed update. taylor said he believes jagger is working him in leading to more participation in the shows "near the end" of this 'tour'.

(aside)

Are you a Tom Verlaine fan?

I have seen Tom with TV going back to CBGB's in NYC. my sign "Dreamtime" does not come from his body of work if that's what you were thinking.

Quote
baldboy
absolutely! Taylor is great; he had his period. He chose to leave. And the Stones of course have been absolute shit without him, Some Girls is horseshit, an accumulation of great tracks on all the albums since are crap (akin to Goats Head Soup and It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, Taylor albums that are not considered first rate compared to previous (but are damn good), etc. And the Stones were beyond horrible before Taylor arrived to teach everyone else how to write songs and play guitar - all the band could manage without Taylor was excrement tracks like Satisfaction, Get Off Of My Cloud, Paint It Black, countless other soundtrack of the British Invasion/sixties ... It's a wonder the Stones ever got a recording contract without Mr. Taylor, he of the myriad solo hits and/or memorable tunes.

A "straw man" argument, as nobody is claiming the Stones were shit before him and that he taught them how to write songs or play guitar. Also, Taylor's lack of accomplishment after leaving the Stones in no way changes the fact that they sounded better with him. Try to argue the actual points being made and you might be taken more seriously.

Quote
DREAMTIME
I have seen Tom with TV going back to CBGB's in NYC. my sign "Dreamtime" does not come from his body of work if that's what you were thinking.

That is what I was thinking. Color me impressed by your resume anyway.

So you're saying they didn't sound very good on Beggars Banquet or almost every track on Let It Bleed (he didn't play on most of it)? So of the 'big four' albums he played on two. As I said, he's great, love his period. Love all Stones' periods.

Bu there's the interesting unanswerable question: if, as the story goes, when the Stones called up the Faces in the studio and asked for Ronnie Wood (to replace Brian Jones) in 1969 and apparently Ronnie Lane answered and said, no, he's not here or whatever, hence Wood didn't join at that time, what path might the Stones have taken had Wood joined then at Jagger-Richards' arguable creative peak at that time and over the next few years, the years Taylor spent with them. Would Sticky Fingers and Exile have been done as they were, what would they have sounded like (and remember, this was just as Wood was coming into his own during Rod Stewart's brilliant 1969-74 Faces/solo period with Wood). Who can say or ever know, just interesting. We're all Stones fans, no? Let's just get along. The guitarist comparisons, as I said in a previous post on another thread, get ridiculous because in the end they are pointless; the band is the band as currently constituted and Taylor is a former member who could have stayed, chose to leave and is now a guest, they'll use him as they wish for whatever their reasons, ego or otherwise, how they believe they best mesh musically on stage with Taylor having been gone for so long, and in the end who cares anyway, we're seeing the Stones again.

Sorry if I'm not 'arguing the actual points being made". I think I am, and in fact introducing a new perspective. We agree to disagree and so be it, whatever.

Cheers.

So you're saying they didn't sound very good on Beggars Banquet or almost every track on Let It Bleed (he didn't play on most of it)? So of the 'big four' albums he played on two. As I said, he's great, love his period. Love all Stones' periods.

Bu there's the interesting unanswerable question: if, as the story goes, when the Stones called up the Faces in the studio and asked for Ronnie Wood (to replace Brian Jones) in 1969 and apparently Ronnie Lane answered and said, no, he's not here or whatever, hence Wood didn't join at that time, what path might the Stones have taken had Wood joined then at Jagger-Richards' arguable creative peak at that time and over the next few years, the years Taylor spent with them. Would Sticky Fingers and Exile have been done as they were, what would they have sounded like (and remember, this was just as Wood was coming into his own during Rod Stewart's brilliant 1969-74 Faces/solo period with Wood). Who can say or ever know, just interesting. We're all Stones fans, no? Let's just get along. The guitarist comparisons, as I said in a previous post on another thread, get ridiculous because in the end they are pointless; the band is the band as currently constituted and Taylor is a former member who could have stayed, chose to leave and is now a guest, they'll use him as they wish for whatever their reasons, ego or otherwise, how they believe they best mesh musically on stage with Taylor having been gone for so long, and in the end who cares anyway, we're seeing the Stones again.

Sorry if I'm not 'arguing the actual points being made". I think I am, and in fact introducing a new perspective. We agree to disagree and so be it, whatever.

Cheers.

apologies for the double post, BTW.

Quote
duffydawg
MJ: For Chicago shoes - ditch the guest and just give MT the balance of time.

Prediction: Jennifer Hudson onstage. (Typical MJ desire)

More logical prediction: Buddy Guy.

Well, they could have Taylor there to trade solos with Buddy - so that the embarrasing scenario of SHINE A LIGHT not would be rehappen. Although both Keith and Ronnie have been in a better shape this time, and I think managed well with soloing with the guests - Keith even showing Jeff Beck his place.

- Doxa